Coronavirus Thread VI: Are We Nearly There Yet? (READ OP)

[The Alma Mater]

No doubt that's a huge factor. I'm not on some Illuminati thing, people naturally become Islamist terrorists and nazis, people naturally poison themselves with stupidity.

I don't have a grand theory here, I basically just think there are enough capitalists profiteering from misery and enough elitist do-gooders who genuinely believe they're helping by destroying freedom that together combine to make the world suck.

The elitist do-gooders are the greatest threat to freedom that the world faces at the moment.

Nah. That's people being unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Or lack of actions.

[Diahon]

No doubt that's a huge factor. I'm not on some Illuminati thing, people naturally become Islamist terrorists and nazis, people naturally poison themselves with stupidity.

I don't have a grand theory here, I basically just think there are enough capitalists profiteering from misery and enough elitist do-gooders who genuinely believe they're helping by destroying freedom that together combine to make the world suck.

The elitist do-gooders are the greatest threat to freedom that the world faces at the moment.

ah, if only i could stare the dead down and say "fuck you, your fault, i got mine, hahahahaha"

[Vassenor]

No doubt that's a huge factor. I'm not on some Illuminati thing, people naturally become Islamist terrorists and nazis, people naturally poison themselves with stupidity.

I don't have a grand theory here, I basically just think there are enough capitalists profiteering from misery and enough elitist do-gooders who genuinely believe they're helping by destroying freedom that together combine to make the world suck.

The elitist do-gooders are the greatest threat to freedom that the world faces at the moment.

Remember, saying people shouldn't drink bleach, eat fish tank cleaners or inject horse dewormers is elitism.

[Keira]

My anti-vax mum just tested positive using the self-test kit. I probably have it too, since I have slight fever and a major headache.

My mum has been having symptoms for over 4 days now, and she's already feeling better. It's a lot weaker than whatever she had in January 2020, so far at least. I think she might start placebo-ing now, though, since she's extremely prone.

Remember when I was on this thread a while back talking about how I'm too lazy to get vaxxed? Well well wel lif it ainitihte the qconsesquentialions of actioons, mymy

OK, and here's an actual take instead of microblogging.

People with Covid-19 should be UNDER NO OBLIGATION, legal or otherwise, to quarantine if that would cause them to be short on money to pay for utilities, housing, food, and other vital things. If one would be in a worse situation whilst having Covid-19 and not working, rather working whilst with Covid-19, they should be allowed to work.

If governments want all positive-tested people to quarantine, they should pay those people a liveable wage whilst they're in quarantine. Otherwise, politicians don't get to complain about lack of compliance regarding Covid-19 from the people.

People who can work from home are an exception to this, of course.

[CoraSpia]

The elitist do-gooders are the greatest threat to freedom that the world faces at the moment.

Nah. That's people being unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Or lack of actions.

How?
The thing with freedom is that it's a very dangerous thing. People fuck up, and actual malicious actors (like the people telling others to drink bleach) get away with their bullshit because of freedom of speech. There is a higher likelihood of mass shootings because of gun rights. It's harder to catch criminals because of strong privacy protections. I see the freedom vs safety argument as a sliding scale, and we all fall on different points of it. The free speech issue is one that transcends where we feel about covid, and it definitely transcends political affiliation. I feel that if we're not consistent on this issue then the moment something we like that may be inconvenient or potentially dangerous is shut down, our arguments become immediately less valid. Freedom of speech applies to the freedom fighter, the terrorist sympathiser, the conspiracy theorist and the protest group in equal measures and unfortunately it does mean that quite often people we don't like end up with a platform to spread utter bullshit.

[Diahon]

My anti-vax mum just tested positive using the self-test kit. I probably have it too, since I have slight fever and a major headache.

My mum has been having symptoms for over 4 days now, and she's already feeling better. It's a lot weaker than whatever she had in January 2020, so far at least. I think she might start placebo-ing now, though, since she's extremely prone.

Remember when I was on this thread a while back talking about how I'm too lazy to get vaxxed? Well well wel lif it ainitihte the qconsesquentialions of actioons, mymy

OK, and here's an actual take instead of microblogging.

People with Covid-19 should be UNDER NO OBLIGATION, legal or otherwise, to quarantine if that would cause them to be short on money to pay for utilities, housing, food, and other vital things. If one would be in a worse situation whilst having Covid-19 and not working, rather working whilst with Covid-19, they should be allowed to work.

If governments want all positive-tested people to quarantine, they should pay those people a liveable wage whilst they're in quarantine. Otherwise, politicians don't get to complain about lack of compliance regarding Covid-19 from the people.

People who can work from home are an exception to this, of course.

fair, but between leaderships that didn't think everything through, and others that merely want MAXIMUM PRODUCTIVITY NOW no matter how unsustainable, no matter what the cost, you're in a tight spot

that said, mere consideration for others demands that you stay put till you're given the all-clear, rather than risk killing someone else by your actions, given the nature of this pandemic

[Ifreann]

I really think this ivermectin shit is black propaganda/false flag. Like I'll grant that it started organically, but then the people who stand to gain money and powerful from internet censorship thought "we can use this." So they literally and proverbially retweeted that ivermectin cures corona, so enough people would poison themselves that they can start building a mandate for China-fying the western world's internet.

I dunno, as much as it's currently in the centre stage as Weird Shit People Do, I don't think the ivermectin stuff is really that out of the ordinary. Americans doing DIY medicine? Nothing weird about that, costs something like $90 just for the consultation to get prescribed ivermectin from the association of grifter doctors that formed around Trump. There's gotta be thousands and thousands of Americans who have to dose themselves up with over the counter medications because they can't afford to visit a doctor and get proper medicine. And there's been stories for years about Facebook groups of people so far gone on disbelieving the medical establishment that they're forcing bleach enemas on their severely Autistic children in the belief it will cure them. Combine that with the trend of algorithmically selected content pushing people deeper and deeper into niche and extreme bubbles, atomised from the rest of society especially during the pandemic. So it follows that more and more people are being funnelled into these communities. No step in the process stands out as inexplicable.

Of course, people are going to use all of this to push for regulation of social media, but it'll probably amount to useless liberal nonsense like getting Zuckerberg to testify before Congress again.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you think all ideas must be respected?

I don't think we have to engage with all ideas, however I do think that they should be allowed a voice. I've never been a fan of anybody putting themselves above the users of a particular service when it comes to what information those users are allowed to see, even if it's to protect them from harmful or misleading information. People are capable of making decisions about who to listen to and who to trust on their own.

When an idea is harmful it should not be allowed a voice, though. No.

[Page]

I don't think we have to engage with all ideas, however I do think that they should be allowed a voice. I've never been a fan of anybody putting themselves above the users of a particular service when it comes to what information those users are allowed to see, even if it's to protect them from harmful or misleading information. People are capable of making decisions about who to listen to and who to trust on their own.

When an idea is harmful it should not be allowed a voice, though. No.

Taking a small dose of psilocybin mushrooms once a month is an extremely effective way of preventing cluster headaches, a condition that is so painful that sufferers sometimes commit suicide. But according to the federal government, psilocybin has a high potential for abuse and no medical uses. So would the censors not consider it harmful misinformation to inform people afflicted with cluster headaches of this option?

Do you think it is not a short jump from ivermectin to that?

And if the precedent is set to suppress harmful ideas, well, the Republicans in charge of many state governments think gender identity is a harmful idea. They think telling a trans kid that their gender identity is valid is child abuse. Russia already suppresses sexual orientation and gender identity affirmation, do you think the Republican Party is any less eager?

And according to Biden's Justice Deparment, I am a domestic violence extremist because I am an anarchist. Lots of people would make the argument that the very idea of anarchism is harmful even if no specific action is encouraged.

Do you see a plausible future where governments and corporations suppress the Holocaust deniers, Sandy Hook truthers, and bleach drinkers and just stop there and go no further?

[The Alma Mater]

When an idea is harmful it should not be allowed a voice, though. No.

Taking a small dose of psilocybin mushrooms once a month is an extremely effective way of preventing cluster headaches, a condition that is so painful that sufferers sometimes commit suicide. But according to the federal government, psilocybin has a high potential for abuse and no medical uses. So would the censors not consider it harmful misinformation to inform people afflicted with cluster headaches of this option?

Do you think it is not a short jump from ivermectin to that?

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Taking a small dose of psilocybin mushrooms once a month is an extremely effective way of preventing cluster headaches, a condition that is so painful that sufferers sometimes commit suicide. But according to the federal government, psilocybin has a high potential for abuse and no medical uses. So would the censors not consider it harmful misinformation to inform people afflicted with cluster headaches of this option?

Do you think it is not a short jump from ivermectin to that?

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

Pretty much but eh.

[Dogmeat]

As a human being, I have to think about the health of anti-vaccine political Islamists. I want to voluntarily receive vaccination training and vaccinate people who are anti-vaccine. Yes to mandatory vaccination !

(Image)

Okay so I know I should just ignore this guy. Because everything he says is meaningless political drivel.

But is anyone else concerned that the vial in the picture just says "Covid 19?" Like, not even "Covid 19 Vaccine." He appears to be vaccinating people with the actual virus.

[Dogmeat]

No doubt that's a huge factor. I'm not on some Illuminati thing, people naturally become Islamist terrorists and nazis, people naturally poison themselves with stupidity.

I don't have a grand theory here, I basically just think there are enough capitalists profiteering from misery and enough elitist do-gooders who genuinely believe they're helping by destroying freedom that together combine to make the world suck.

The elitist do-gooders are the greatest threat to freedom that the world faces at the moment.

This would be more convincing if the anti-intellectualist crowd hadn't just elected a wanabe authoritarian strongman with obvious contempt for freedom and democracy. And then tried to overthrow an election when he lost.

[Esternial]

As a human being, I have to think about the health of anti-vaccine political Islamists. I want to voluntarily receive vaccination training and vaccinate people who are anti-vaccine. Yes to mandatory vaccination !

(Image)

Okay so I know I should just ignore this guy. Because everything he says is meaningless political drivel.

But is anyone else concerned that the vial in the picture just says "Covid 19?" Like, not even "Covid 19 Vaccine." He appears to be vaccinating people with the actual virus.

There are languages, other than English, where they put the "vaccine" before the "COVID 19". French is one of them.

That could be on the part of the vial you can't see.

[Page]

Taking a small dose of psilocybin mushrooms once a month is an extremely effective way of preventing cluster headaches, a condition that is so painful that sufferers sometimes commit suicide. But according to the federal government, psilocybin has a high potential for abuse and no medical uses. So would the censors not consider it harmful misinformation to inform people afflicted with cluster headaches of this option?

Do you think it is not a short jump from ivermectin to that?

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

And which currently existing government or corporation do you trust to differentiate in the way you see fit? There is no one trustworthy.

I don't think children should be playing with fireworks unsupervised but if 100% of the people volunteering to watch the kids were convicted sex offenders, it would be better to let the kids just play by themselves until a non-sex offender comes along.

As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Facebook, and Twitter are all the metaphorical equivalent of sex offenders.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Okay so I know I should just ignore this guy. Because everything he says is meaningless political drivel.

But is anyone else concerned that the vial in the picture just says "Covid 19?" Like, not even "Covid 19 Vaccine." He appears to be vaccinating people with the actual virus.

There are languages, other than English, where they put the "vaccine" before the "COVID 19". French is one of them.

That could be on the part of the vial you can't see.

Probably all Romance languages do, yeah.

[CoraSpia]

Taking a small dose of psilocybin mushrooms once a month is an extremely effective way of preventing cluster headaches, a condition that is so painful that sufferers sometimes commit suicide. But according to the federal government, psilocybin has a high potential for abuse and no medical uses. So would the censors not consider it harmful misinformation to inform people afflicted with cluster headaches of this option?

Do you think it is not a short jump from ivermectin to that?

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

Who is the person who gets to draw this particular line? The government? A social media company? Random internet vigilantes? I don't deny that allowing all ideas, from 'drinking bleach will cure your covid in 3 minutes' to 'the gays want to corrupt your children' will lead to harm, but it's the only consistent view. Otherwise we're giving somebody or some organisation a lot of power regarding what people are allowed to talk about, and there is nobody who can be trusted to make those calls.

[Antipatros]

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

And which currently existing government or corporation do you trust to differentiate in the way you see fit? There is no one trustworthy.

I don't think children should be playing with fireworks unsupervised but if 100% of the people volunteering to watch the kids were convicted sex offenders, it would be better to let the kids just play by themselves until a non-sex offender comes along.

As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Facebook, and Twitter are all the metaphorical equivalent of sex offenders.

The way I see it as follows:

1) The responsibility of the government in this case is to provide the public with reliable information. That information should be vetted and signed off by independent public health authorities. All levels of government should use that information as a foundation for their messaging and decision making.

2) Each individual private site operator, infrastructure provider, business owner, etc. should make the judgement call when it comes to what is acceptable or unacceptable on their platform. I don't think the government should get involved in doling out penalties for misinformation, except when that information is provided by someone who is accredited or licensed to be a medical professional. If those people put out harmful medical misinformation, they should lose their license.

[Antipatros]

And which currently existing government or corporation do you trust to differentiate in the way you see fit? There is no one trustworthy.

I don't think children should be playing with fireworks unsupervised but if 100% of the people volunteering to watch the kids were convicted sex offenders, it would be better to let the kids just play by themselves until a non-sex offender comes along.

As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Facebook, and Twitter are all the metaphorical equivalent of sex offenders.

The way I see it as follows:

1) The responsibility of the government in this case is to provide the public with reliable information. That information should be vetted and signed off by independent public health authorities. All levels of government should use that information as a foundation for their messaging and decision making.

2) Each individual private site operator, infrastructure provider, business owner, etc. should make the judgement call when it comes to what is acceptable or unacceptable on their platform. I don't think the government should get involved in doling out penalties for misinformation, except when that information is provided by someone who is accredited or licensed to be a medical professional. If those people put out harmful medical misinformation, they should lose their license.

Sorry to double post, but I think that the moral obligation of site operators is to swiftly take down harmful medical misinformation and to punish people who post it. Businesses who allow their platforms to be used to spread misinformation bear moral responsibility for the harm that occurs.

Moral obligations and legal obligations are separate points, though.

[Ifreann]

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

Who is the person who gets to draw this particular line? The government? A social media company? Random internet vigilantes? I don't deny that allowing all ideas, from 'drinking bleach will cure your covid in 3 minutes' to 'the gays want to corrupt your children' will lead to harm, but it's the only consistent view. Otherwise we're giving somebody or some organisation a lot of power regarding what people are allowed to talk about, and there is nobody who can be trusted to make those calls.

Social media platforms are the private property of their owners, are they not? If you believe in private property then surely the only answer here is that social media companies ought to have nigh unlimited authority to permit or deny anything on their platforms on any basis they see fit, just as much as the owner of any other property has nigh unlimited authority to do with that property as they see fit.

[The Black Forrest]

As you have been told several times. That is not the case. We have had many people drink bleach. We have many many people injecting ivermectin.

People can express ideas. That doesn’t they get to spread lies.

You enabled liars and help spread lies.

That is why your board died. You and the other mods failed at your job.

Had these people been judged as lacking capacity by a qualified professional? If so this is a tragedy and the person who was responsible for taking care of them should have done a much better job. If this was not the case however these people are adults and have simply done what adults have been doing since just after the dawn of time: making bad decisions and suffering very bad health consequences.

Irrelevent.

You enabled liars and help spread lies.

You failed and your board died because of that.

[Ethel mermania]

Had these people been judged as lacking capacity by a qualified professional? If so this is a tragedy and the person who was responsible for taking care of them should have done a much better job. If this was not the case however these people are adults and have simply done what adults have been doing since just after the dawn of time: making bad decisions and suffering very bad health consequences.

Irrelevent.

You enabled liars and help spread lies.

You failed and your board died because of that.

The board died because the mob demanded it die.

Whether that demand is justified is a different question

[The Black Forrest]

As you have been told several times. That is not the case. We have had many people drink bleach. We have many many people injecting ivermectin.

People can express ideas. That doesn’t they get to spread lies.

You enabled liars and help spread lies.

That is why your board died. You and the other mods failed at your job.

I value freedom of information more than I value the lives of people who drink bleach.

Even if we would all come to an agreement that misinformation should be suppressed and people spreading it deplatformed, what currently existing company or government is trustworthy of enforcing it? I can't think of a single one.

A lie isn’t information. Enabling liars and helping spread lies isn’t freedom of information.

Your trust or lack there of for a company is irrelevant as you agreed to their rules when you created your account. If they say “buhbye” as was done. Well thems the breaks.

[The Black Forrest]

Irrelevent.

You enabled liars and help spread lies.

You failed and your board died because of that.

The board died because the mob demanded it die.

Whether that demand is justified is a different question

It was more then that. Companies don’t always respond to “we don’t like this board”

[The Alma Mater]

Nope, and a debate on that is fine.
A claim like "research shows ivermectin is 100% effective; while 98% of the vaccinated people will die within 2 years" is not fine.

Really. It is not hard to grasp.

Who is the person who gets to draw this particular line? The government? A social media company? Random internet vigilantes? I don't deny that allowing all ideas, from 'drinking bleach will cure your covid in 3 minutes' to 'the gays want to corrupt your children' will lead to harm, but it's the only consistent view. Otherwise we're giving somebody or some organisation a lot of power regarding what people are allowed to talk about, and there is nobody who can be trusted to make those calls.

Why are you still dishonestly pretending you do not see the difference between controversial opinions and falsehoods ?
Or are you not dishonest but - to use your own words - "not rational" ?
In which case I once again urge you to selfreflect if you are the right person to moderate sites frequented by... easily confused people.